User talk:Gilles Tran
Welcome!
Hello, Gilles Tran, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karmafist 15:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Good to see you around
I've been an avid follower of your work since the early days, assuming this is indeed the same Gilles Tran of Oyonale. It is good to see you here, contributing your wisdom to the Wikipedia. -Fuzzy 21:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Sean, thanks for the welcome. I'm indeed the same person! --Gilles Tran 09:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- sure he is the one! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Glasses_800_edit.png is the proof! :)
Seconded! —Tamfang 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Anton. It looks like a POV-Ray Addicts Not-So-Anymous meeting here :) --Gilles Tran 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- You're onymous, Sean and I are hemi-onymous (our names can be found with a smidgen of effort) ... —Tamfang 05:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
POVray
Your picture is amazing; it really shows the abilities of ray tracers. It looks completely realistic! smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I hope people like it and use it (I put it in Public Domain). I'll release the code when I find the time to update my website. --Gilles Tran 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Any chance you could put the povray source up sometime soon? The image is amazing and I'd love to have a play with it myself. -- Alan 16:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
FPC
I have nominated your awesome "Glasses 800" for Featured Picture. Let's hope it will be featured! PS: On the FPC page, a question wqas asked: How long did it take you to create this image (coding + rendering)? Can you answer here, please? --Janke | Talk 06:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Is it possible to regenerate your image at a higher resolution? I am afraid some people will vote oppose due to the relatively small size. Current requirement seems to be higher than 1000px. Thanks in advance Glaurung 06:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've put a resized version on line to smooth out some of the graininess in focal blur and some of the poor antialiasing, but the original version is available here.
Gilles, as you can see, your work of art has so far earned an unconditional 100% support, and many more votes than is usual for a FPC. This image will be featured, for sure, probably in the larger version now being rendered by MDD, provided he can get the gamma in the right ballpark. Congratulations, ahead of time! --Janke | Talk 07:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hello Janke! Thanks a lot for your efforts. I really didn't expect this image to be nominated! --Gilles Tran 08:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Félicitations
Amazing job with Image:Glasses 800.png! How long did it take you to make it? It's simply awesome!! deeptrivia (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! Rendering took 2 days. Creating the scene itself was quite fast. It was just a demo scene so not a lot of work went into it as most of the models had been created previously (for this scene) --Gilles Tran 08:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Featured picture promotion
~ Veledan • Talk 17:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Help with AC3D and Pov ray
Hi Gilles Tran!
I was so impressed with your glass pov ray that I came straight to you for help with my 3D problem! I'm working on my school magazine and I want to make a collage which looks a little like this: Image:AC3D 3d window.jpg, except in the final version the objects will have a texture of a collage which has been overlaid in it's respective color. But for the sake of this question we can ignore all that and use the pix I've got on the objects there. I'm making it with AC3D because it's easy to use (for a complete novice like myself!). What I want, and can't do, is to render that scene at A3 size (4961x3508 preferably, but I can live with 3307x2339) with some soft shadows. Just fiddling with pov ray I made this: Image:Povray output.jpg, which is close to what I eventually want except the positioning is a bit out (I also changed the order of the objects) and I want the shadows much softer. Sorry if I'm not making my self very clear, here's want I want to ask if you could do for me:
- Tell me how to get soft shadows
- Tell me how to customize the render size
Also I find the positioning system in Pov Ray really hard to use. I really like the "3D window" in AC3D, is there anyway to save the position/orientation that I get in the 3D window for use in Pov Ray? Because I want it looking like Image:AC3D 3d window.jpg, but when I export in AC3D to a pov ray file the camera position is moved. I've uploaded the AC3D file and Pov ray file to here. Thanks, and I hope you can help me! --Fir0002 12:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Peter
The problem with AC3D apparently is that it doesn't export properly the camera (unless there's an option for that). Since I don't have AC3D I rewrote the scene from scratch here :
I've added radiosity and some specular highlights to make the picture more pretty. Feel free to remove that of course. About the soft shadows, POV-Ray only supports "true" soft shadows, not the false ones that are often found in 3D apps. They are more accurate and realistic, but tend to give longer render times (and there's an issue with graininess too). In the scene file I added rather large soft shadows. To modify the shadow softness increase the size of the area_light vectors (for instance x*100, z*100 should be changed to x*150, z*150). For more information about area lights in POV-Ray see the manual Section 3.4.7.5 Area Lights. To customize the render size, give the size on the render command line +W4961 +H3508. Note that you should theoretically change the image ratio ("right" vector in the camera definition) but it's done automatically in this particular scene. Note that you may need to change the assumed_gamma value if the image is too dark or too pale. Better, change the display_gamma value in the povray.ini configuration file (it's in the "renderer" directory where you installed POV-Ray) to match your monitor's gamma. Gilles Tran
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar | ||
I Fir0002 hereby award Gilles Tran this barnstar for his amazing expertise which he so freely provides to Wikipedia Fir0002 23:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC) |
- Oh dude! That' just so perfect! Oh I'm must so happy with that! Thank you so much and here's a barnstar for your trouble! The objects in the image do look a little pale, I'm concerned that if I change the gamma value it will also darken the white background? Coz the tones of the background are just perfect. Also, and this is a little quibble which I'm not really that fussed over, is it possible to recover the back verticle corner of the background? I just want it to be slightly visible. Also in the final render I'll be changing the images which on the objects, so if I just override "red.bmp" and "blue.bmp" etc it will still work? Other than I can't thank you enough, that's made my day! --Fir0002 23:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well that's strange, I just d/loaded your rendered PNG and looked at in irfanview and it looked heaps darker (and better) than what it looked like (lighter) in firefox. Also I did a render of the pov scene you made and it looked like the image I got in firefox. Any ideas? --Fir0002 00:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Update: Ok, I've changed "assumed_gamma" in global settings from 1 to 1.8 which has improved the darkness (couldn't find "display_gamma" in the povray.ini file - I'm using ver 3.6), also I changed "brightness 1.5" to "brightness 1.4" which has brought back that corner. So everything is going great. Last point, is anti aliasing worth turning on, and if so what "section" is best suited? In the drop down list I've got values ranging from "[160x120, AA 0.3]" to "[1280x1024, AA 0.3]" --Fir0002 00:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a larger res render I just did: Image:Collage POV scene.jpg. Looks good, but the shadows have gone a bit funny. Do you know how to fix that? --Fir0002 01:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good. About display_gamma: you need to add it (sorry I forgot to tell you). Just put Display_Gamma=x at the end of the file (where x is your monitor's gamma). About the differences between the PNG in FF and Irfanview: PNG stores gamma information, but this information isn't always decoded. About the strange shadows: these are radiosity artifacts. You can increase the "count" value in the radiosity settings (it's 200 now, max is 1600) until they disappear. You can also increase the "nearest_count" (up to 20). However, it's going to increase the render times and in some cases it's not possible to remove the artifacts so be prepared to do some smoothing in Photoshop. About replacing the images : just override the images or replace the image names in the texture definitions. About antialiasing: 1280x1024 AA 0.3 means an image rendered a a 1280x1024 pixel size with the default theshold value for antialiasing. And yes, antialiasing is necessary to avoid jagged edges (but it increases render times too). Tip: to speed up your tests you can render partial images by using the command line to restrict the area to be rendered : try "+sc0.571429 +sr0.652741 +ec0.745597 +er0.827676" for instance (s=start, e=end, c=column, r=row and the values are the relative positions of the row or column). Thanks for the Barnstar, and keep up with the great photographs!--Gilles Tran 09:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. How do you render as a PNG? I'm currently rendering as a BMP. Also is there any advantage of having a PNG? So for the "Display_Gamma=" should I use the same value which I used in "assumed_gamma"? --Fir0002 10:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've used the small render selection you gave me (which is really handy!), and I bumped up the count values. I think part of the lumpiness is caused by reflections off the surface of the objects onto the white floor. You seen distinct greens etc from the green lillies on the cubiod. Can we make the white surface more matte? --Fir0002 10:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- To render as a PNG, use +FN in the command line. The main advantage of PNG is that it's a lossless (unlike JPEG) format that allows good compression (unlike BMP). About the gamma: to be frank the gamma settings are a little confusing, even for me. I believe that you should set the display gamma to your monitor's gamma and use an assumed_gamma value of 1. About the artifacts: as I said they are a by-product of the radiosity feature. Radiosity is what creates the colour bleeding that you noticed, but of course this (physically correct) effect is exactly why radiosity is used in the first place. If you think that the effect is not needed, just remove the radiosity block. However, without radiosity, you will need a stronger light and possibly use ambient light or a shadowless fill light to compensate for the missing radiosity light (actually this is what AC3D did: it added a fill light located at the camera position).--Gilles Tran 12:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've used the small render selection you gave me (which is really handy!), and I bumped up the count values. I think part of the lumpiness is caused by reflections off the surface of the objects onto the white floor. You seen distinct greens etc from the green lillies on the cubiod. Can we make the white surface more matte? --Fir0002 10:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. How do you render as a PNG? I'm currently rendering as a BMP. Also is there any advantage of having a PNG? So for the "Display_Gamma=" should I use the same value which I used in "assumed_gamma"? --Fir0002 10:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good. About display_gamma: you need to add it (sorry I forgot to tell you). Just put Display_Gamma=x at the end of the file (where x is your monitor's gamma). About the differences between the PNG in FF and Irfanview: PNG stores gamma information, but this information isn't always decoded. About the strange shadows: these are radiosity artifacts. You can increase the "count" value in the radiosity settings (it's 200 now, max is 1600) until they disappear. You can also increase the "nearest_count" (up to 20). However, it's going to increase the render times and in some cases it's not possible to remove the artifacts so be prepared to do some smoothing in Photoshop. About replacing the images : just override the images or replace the image names in the texture definitions. About antialiasing: 1280x1024 AA 0.3 means an image rendered a a 1280x1024 pixel size with the default theshold value for antialiasing. And yes, antialiasing is necessary to avoid jagged edges (but it increases render times too). Tip: to speed up your tests you can render partial images by using the command line to restrict the area to be rendered : try "+sc0.571429 +sr0.652741 +ec0.745597 +er0.827676" for instance (s=start, e=end, c=column, r=row and the values are the relative positions of the row or column). Thanks for the Barnstar, and keep up with the great photographs!--Gilles Tran 09:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a larger res render I just did: Image:Collage POV scene.jpg. Looks good, but the shadows have gone a bit funny. Do you know how to fix that? --Fir0002 01:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Update: Ok, I've changed "assumed_gamma" in global settings from 1 to 1.8 which has improved the darkness (couldn't find "display_gamma" in the povray.ini file - I'm using ver 3.6), also I changed "brightness 1.5" to "brightness 1.4" which has brought back that corner. So everything is going great. Last point, is anti aliasing worth turning on, and if so what "section" is best suited? In the drop down list I've got values ranging from "[160x120, AA 0.3]" to "[1280x1024, AA 0.3]" --Fir0002 00:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well that's strange, I just d/loaded your rendered PNG and looked at in irfanview and it looked heaps darker (and better) than what it looked like (lighter) in firefox. Also I did a render of the pov scene you made and it looked like the image I got in firefox. Any ideas? --Fir0002 00:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Congrats
Todays Featured Picture is your piece of art, congrats!--Andeh 10:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, congrats! The image you created is incredibly realistic. One graphic designer's barnstar is great, but for your mind-blowing featured picture...
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar | ||
This Graphic Designer's Barnstar goes to Gilles Tran for amazing work on a featured picture. Gray Porpoise 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar | ||
Nice picture dude.
Ilikefood 22:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
...you should get another! --Gray Porpoise 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the image is amazing. Congratulations! -- Puffball 21:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Your glasses, ice, and wine glass picture
Is that all completely computer generated!?! It looks so real. Reading what you wrote, it seems like you completely made it in the computer...but IT LOOKS SO REAL!